Stacks project -- Comments https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/recent-comments.xml Stacks project, see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu en [email protected] (The Stacks project) [email protected] (Pieter Belmans) https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/static/stacks.png Stacks project -- Comments https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/recent-comments.rss #9896 on tag 03GD by Manolis C. Tsakiris https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/03GD#comment-9896 A new comment by Manolis C. Tsakiris on tag 03GD. In the proof: Is the fact that is a finite free extension used anywhere?

>
Manolis C. Tsakiris Sat, 14 Dec 2024 02:16:05 GMT
#9895 on tag 03HS by Manolis C. Tsakiris https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/03HS#comment-9895 A new comment by Manolis C. Tsakiris on tag 03HS. The freeness of the map of example 00SR, is explicitly used in the proof of Lemma 03GD. Thus I suggest replacing "locally free" with "free" in the statement of the current Lemma.

>
Manolis C. Tsakiris Sat, 14 Dec 2024 01:14:43 GMT
#9894 on tag 0597 by Laurent Moret-Bailly https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0597#comment-9894 A new comment by Laurent Moret-Bailly on tag 0597. End of proof: the claim is "obvious" to the same extent as the axiom of choice; in fact it is exactly the "dependent choice axiom".

>
Laurent Moret-Bailly Wed, 11 Dec 2024 12:00:14 GMT
#9893 on tag 05CT by Quentin https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/05CT#comment-9893 A new comment by Quentin on tag 05CT. The hypothesis that be a Mittag-Leffler -module is redundant: by 10.88.8, this follows from from being a flat -module.

>
Quentin Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:37:12 GMT
#9892 on tag 01W0 by Avraham Aizenbud https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01W0#comment-9892 A new comment by Avraham Aizenbud on tag 01W0. I hope it is a suitable place to ask questions. In the definition of proper morphism, you require finite type but not finite presentation. Does it mean that there are proper morphisms which are not of finite presentation?

>
Avraham Aizenbud Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:15:33 GMT
#9891 on tag 01W0 by Avraham Aizenbud https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01W0#comment-9891 A new comment by Avraham Aizenbud on tag 01W0. I hope it is a suitable place to ask questions. In the definition of proper morphism, you require finite type but not finite presentation. Does it mean that there are proper morphisms which are not of finite presentation?

>
Avraham Aizenbud Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:14:13 GMT
#9890 on tag 0C5Z by Doug Liu https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0C5Z#comment-9890 A new comment by Doug Liu on tag 0C5Z. The first displayed equation in the proof, should be ?

>
Doug Liu Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:55:51 GMT
#9889 on tag 05QK by Elías Guisado https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/05QK#comment-9889 A new comment by Elías Guisado on tag 05QK. (Original code here.) For reference, this is the actual result:

Lemma. Let be triangulated functors between pre-triangulated categories. For each object , suppose given a morphism and denote . The following are equivalent:

  1. is a natural transformation and we have a commutative triangle of natural transformations

  1. For every distinguished triangle in , the diagram commutes, where the vertical maps are given by , and the last top and bottom arrows are and , respectively.

Succintly, is a transnatural transformation (a 2-morphism in the category of categories with translation) if and only if it is a trinatural transformation (a 2-morphism in the category of pre-triangulated categories). I wrote the proof in this question (see the Lemma at the end).

>
Elías Guisado Tue, 10 Dec 2024 06:17:13 GMT
#9888 on tag 075D by ZL https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/075D#comment-9888 A new comment by ZL on tag 075D. I am wondering where the hypothesis is an étale sheaf is used. It seems to me that this Lemma holds true even for presheaves on . ((1)(3)(4) are true for presheaves since the comparison morphisms are constructed for presheaves and (2) can be verified by a direct computation.) Maybe I missed some point?

>
ZL Sat, 07 Dec 2024 05:05:45 GMT
#9887 on tag 01MM by Yaowei Zhang https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01MM#comment-9887 A new comment by Yaowei Zhang on tag 01MM. I think in the proof of lemma 27.10.4 in second paragraph third last line it should be instead of

>
Yaowei Zhang Sat, 07 Dec 2024 11:07:19 GMT